In a statement, the town said it plans to defend itself against the legal action from the Goldwater Institute and resident Deborah Rose, who are arguing that the emergency clause for the measure was unnecessary and does not allow voters the opportunity to decide. The move will raise sales taxes in the town by one-cent.

“The Town of Payson intends to vigorously defend against the suit, as the law clearly provides that courts cannot interfere with a legislative body’s decision to adopt a measure with an emergency clause,” the town said in a statement on Thursday, adding that it’s “common” for municipalities in Arizona to make decisions like the council did.

Meanwhile, the town also pointed to remarks made by Councilmember Joel Mona during the Aug. 21 where the 6-1 vote occured, saying the bond issue will help with the opening of the Taylor Pool, which he said could fall under the umbrella of an emergency.

“Taylor Pool closed in 2019 and has drastically limited the ability for children to get swimming lessons. Drowning is the No.1 cause of death for children ages one to four, second leading cause of death for children ages five to fourteen. Obviously learning how to swim reduces that risk of death and to me and that checks the box for safety,” Mona said.

“Aquatic activity lowers the risk of heart disease, diabetes and respiratory illness. It even helps people with PTSD, addiction, anxiety disorder and sleep trouble. People with arthritis, osteoporosis, injuries, disabilities that make high impact exercise difficult or impossible benefit from aquatic exercise. That clearly checks the box for health. Preservation of peace, health or safety,” he added.

Goldwater Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches is not buying the explanation.

“The town of Payson has acted entirely outside the bounds of state law in order to suppress the constitutional rights of its citizens,” Riches told The Center Square in a statement.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Local governments can only prevent citizens from sending an ordinance to voters if it is necessary for the immediate preservation of health or safety. The town’s justification does not remotely approach that standard. Additionally, for the town to threaten its citizens seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights in court is beyond the pale, and likewise unlawful, subjecting the town to further legal liability,” he continued.

The Center Square reported Thursday that the town said economic conditions justified the move, whereas the institute said that it flouts the power of voters to base the move off “financial trends.”